What are you reading?

This post has
491
Replies |
50
Followers

I'm not sure if a threat like this has been made in the past, but I thought it would be interesting to show what we're reading.

_____________________________

I'm currently reading Roger Garrison's Time and Money. It's definately not what I thought it would be like (I was actually sort of let down); Garrison seems to put more emphasis on modelling general ideals, versus actually explaining the ideas completely. For example, I thought that it would be an exposition (or include one) of capital theory similar to that of Hayek, but in more modern and concise writing — it turns out that the way he explains capital theory is in very broad strokes. Most of the book actually has to do with judging alternative theories within the context of his capital theory modelling.

Human, All Too Human, Sartre's Essays In Existentialism, and Vonnegut's Welcome to the Monkey House.

Got sidetracked:

Human Action, understandable how someone can get sidetracked with this. 500 pages in and the sections on prices slowed me down. Yet, it already seems I've read a lot of the later chapters from Mises daily articles. Last time I had read this was probably in September.

What's next:

Hegel's Philosophy of Right, and Early Writings by Marx, a collection of his early material such as his 1844 Manuscripts, ect.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

Great Wars & Great Leaders A Libertarian Rebuttal by Ralph Raico and Making Economic Sense by Murray Rothbard. I have just finished up A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II by Murray Rothbard and have to say it was an excellent read.

"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." - Murray N. Rothbard.

Hazlitt's Foundations of Morality is very high on my reading list, though I may put it (way) off to read The Theory of Moral Sentiments first.

I would seriously advise you not to do that. Although Moral Sentiments isn't bad per se, there is a real high oppurtunity cost and it's a long book and AS just writes really boring. And Foundations of Morality is really a genuine master piece in moral philosophy. I know of no work that argues for a rule-utilitarian perspective that is thàt good.

Hazlitt's Foundations of Morality is very high on my reading list, though I may put it (way) off to read The Theory of Moral Sentiments first.

I would seriously advise you not to do that. Although Moral Sentiments isn't bad per se, there is a real high oppurtunity cost and it's a long book and AS just writes really boring. And Foundations of Morality is really a genuine master piece in moral philosophy. I know of no work that argues for a rule-utilitarian perspective that is thàt good.

Also, Hazlitt covers that book extensively in FoM. So, in addition to Hazlitt's Foundations of Morality being a masterpiece (so far, I definitely agree with that description) it would be a great primer on Smith's ethics that will inform your later reading of the latter.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

Hazlitt's Foundations of Morality is very high on my reading list, though I may put it (way) off to read The Theory of Moral Sentiments first.

I would seriously advise you not to do that. Although Moral Sentiments isn't bad per se, there is a real high oppurtunity cost and it's a long book and AS just writes really boring. And Foundations of Morality is really a genuine master piece in moral philosophy. I know of no work that argues for a rule-utilitarian perspective that is thàt good.

Also, Hazlitt covers that book extensively in FoM. So, in addition to it being a masterpiece (so far, I definitely agree with that description) it would be a great primer on Smith's ethics that will inform your later reading of the latter.

I consider Foundations of Morality on the same level as Anarchy, State and Utopia or A Theory of Justice.

I just finished The Road to Serfdom, I have to now decide which of these two books I'm going to read next: Rothbard's What Has Government Done to Our Money or Mises' Human Action. Any suggestions as to which one I should read first??

I just finished The Road to Serfdom, I have to now decide which of these two books I'm going to read next: Rothbard's What Has Government Done to Our Money or Mises' Human Action. Any suggestions as to which one I should read first??

Obviously it depends on how long and challenging of a book you are up for. The Money book is really short.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

Enjoyable reading. So far, every essay has been about how the government lowers the quality of life (e.g. toilets, shower heads). I downloaded it to my phone.

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

I consider Foundations of Morality on the same level as Anarchy, State and Utopia or A Theory of Justice.

Danny Sanchez:

So, in addition to it being a masterpiece (so far, I definitely agree with that description)

Wow, bold praise. I don't see it mentioned very often, so I didn't think it was a huge deal; still, as I seem to lean towards Misesian utilitarianism, I've had my eye on it for a while now. Eager as I am to get TMS under my belt, I will read Hazlitt first.

Enjoyable reading. So far, every essay has been about how the government lowers the quality of life (e.g. toilets, shower heads). I downloaded it to my phone.

I really liked Jeffrey Tuckers Book. I think it's amazing how the most common and seemingly insignificant aspects of life can be analyzed through an Ancap perspective. Plus Jeff is a pretty nice guy in person so the book is double good in my view.

I consider Foundations of Morality on the same level as Anarchy, State and Utopia or A Theory of Justice.

Danny Sanchez:

So, in addition to it being a masterpiece (so far, I definitely agree with that description)

Wow, bold praise. I don't see it mentioned very often, so I didn't think it was a huge deal; still, as I seem to lean towards Misesian utilitarianism, I've had my eye on it for a while now. Eager as I am to get TMS under my belt, I will read Hazlitt first.

Well, as wonderful as they are, most present day prominent Misesians (God bless 'em), due to Rothbard's influence, subscribe to natural rights/natural law doctrine (either that or argumentation ethics), so you wouldn't expect them to cite it often.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

“The Google way: How One Company Is Revolutionizing Management As We Know It” by Bernard Girard, which is nice although I enjoyed far more David Thielen’s “The 12 simple secrets of Microsoft management”. As soon as I’m done I want to pick up something on organized crime. If you need some streamlined management tips, that’s the lace to look.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.

I consider Foundations of Morality on the same level as Anarchy, State and Utopia or A Theory of Justice.

Danny Sanchez:

So, in addition to it being a masterpiece (so far, I definitely agree with that description)

Wow, bold praise. I don't see it mentioned very often, so I didn't think it was a huge deal; still, as I seem to lean towards Misesian utilitarianism, I've had my eye on it for a while now. Eager as I am to get TMS under my belt, I will read Hazlitt first.

I'm not a Misesian utilitarian per se - I do think the concept of a 'natural law' is a valid concept, although I consider 'The Ethics of Liberty's relationship to political philosophy as 'economics in one lesson' is to economics - but I don't think Hazlitt makes the typical rule utilitarian mistake of saying that there can be no science of 'ought'. There can be and he makes a damn good case for it. Weakest chapters in the book are, imo, however 'the ethics of capitalism' and 'the ethics of socialism'.

I'm currently reading - Justice and its Surroundings by Anthony de Jasay, and rereading Human Action. For anyone else that has read Justice and its Surroundings what do you make of Chapter 5 (the very short chapter). Unless I've read it wrongly it seems a little incongruous, and quite statist.

I'm also reading a fascinating fiction book called Shades of Grey by Jasper Fforde. It's a vision of a future dystopia in which society is organised and formed into a hierarchy by the citizen's colour perception. I'm not very far through it so I don't want to make a judgement yet.

I'm currently reading - Justice and its Surroundings by Anthony de Jasay, and rereading Human Action. For anyone else that has read Justice and its Surroundings what do you make of Chapter 5 (the very short chapter). Unless I've read it wrongly it seems a little incongruous, and quite statist.

Poke min in a private message if I don't get back to you on this in 24 hours.